I think most are self-interested twerps who are largely concerned with other people having "advantages" they do not have, while completely ignoring the advantages they themselves have had in life.

I'll bite, and hopefully won't regret it... I don't want to get into a big thing about this, but I would like to see if I can at least clarify for you why people think the way they do. (FWIW, I got in everywhere I applied, so AA didn't hurt me personally. Just so you know where I'm coming from.)

OK, so I think you acknowledge part of the problem people have, which is that a factor that one cannot control playing a big role in admissions. Reasonably smart people can work hard and get a good GPA and a good LSAT score... maybe not what they want, exactly, but at least in theory those are based on how YOU personally perform. Ditto for LORs, extracurriculars, work experience, etc. URM status is the one thing that the applicant has zero control over, yet it often has a huge impact.

But, as you say, lots of people have advantages they can't control: Wealthier people, for example, don't have to work in school, can hire LSAT tutors, grow up with the expectation of getting a good education, etc. So AA just compensates for that, right?

Not really. It's not like all white people are rich and all minorities are poor. Do you really think a black kid whose dad was a dentist should get advantages over a white kid who grew up in a singlewide? I don't. I would be more likely to support some sort of socio-economic AA than a race-based AA. I think it would give more real diversity than current programs as well as be more fair. If people actually have overcome a lot to get where they are, they deserve a boost.

I agree completely with the suggestion of changing a race-based AA system into a socio-economic one, in which race might still play a role. The current system, though it might be successful in part, seems to be geared moreso towards satisfying PC statistics than creating equality. As far as intellectual diversity is concerned, I think attracting foreign scholars should play a bigger role. Afterall, regardless of race, most URMs likely are Americans, who grew up in the US and therefore embrace the main culture. People from other parts of the world would be more likely to bring in a different perspective.

I think most are self-interested twerps who are largely concerned with other people having "advantages" they do not have, while completely ignoring the advantages they themselves have had in life.

I'll bite, and hopefully won't regret it... I don't want to get into a big thing about this, but I would like to see if I can at least clarify for you why people think the way they do. (FWIW, I got in everywhere I applied, so AA didn't hurt me personally. Just so you know where I'm coming from.)

OK, so I think you acknowledge part of the problem people have, which is that a factor that one cannot control playing a big role in admissions. Reasonably smart people can work hard and get a good GPA and a good LSAT score... maybe not what they want, exactly, but at least in theory those are based on how YOU personally perform. Ditto for LORs, extracurriculars, work experience, etc. URM status is the one thing that the applicant has zero control over, yet it often has a huge impact.

But, as you say, lots of people have advantages they can't control: Wealthier people, for example, don't have to work in school, can hire LSAT tutors, grow up with the expectation of getting a good education, etc. So AA just compensates for that, right?

Not really. It's not like all white people are rich and all minorities are poor. Do you really think a black kid whose dad was a dentist should get advantages over a white kid who grew up in a singlewide? I don't. I would be more likely to support some sort of socio-economic AA than a race-based AA. I think it would give more real diversity than current programs as well as be more fair. If people actually have overcome a lot to get where they are, they deserve a boost.

What do you believe the reasons (or goals) for affirmative action are?

If the goals are to help those that are socioeconomically disadvantaged then why not help those with socioeconomic disadvantages regardless of race?

I think most are self-interested twerps who are largely concerned with other people having "advantages" they do not have, while completely ignoring the advantages they themselves have had in life.

I'll bite, and hopefully won't regret it... I don't want to get into a big thing about this, but I would like to see if I can at least clarify for you why people think the way they do. (FWIW, I got in everywhere I applied, so AA didn't hurt me personally. Just so you know where I'm coming from.)

OK, so I think you acknowledge part of the problem people have, which is that a factor that one cannot control playing a big role in admissions. Reasonably smart people can work hard and get a good GPA and a good LSAT score... maybe not what they want, exactly, but at least in theory those are based on how YOU personally perform. Ditto for LORs, extracurriculars, work experience, etc. URM status is the one thing that the applicant has zero control over, yet it often has a huge impact.

But, as you say, lots of people have advantages they can't control: Wealthier people, for example, don't have to work in school, can hire LSAT tutors, grow up with the expectation of getting a good education, etc. So AA just compensates for that, right?

Not really. It's not like all white people are rich and all minorities are poor. Do you really think a black kid whose dad was a dentist should get advantages over a white kid who grew up in a singlewide? I don't. I would be more likely to support some sort of socio-economic AA than a race-based AA. I think it would give more real diversity than current programs as well as be more fair. If people actually have overcome a lot to get where they are, they deserve a boost.

What do you believe the reasons (or goals) for affirmative action are?

Why is this still unanswered?

I get it. The other side doesn't know, but rather they have their own inventions of what the goals are. And when pressed they simply parrot the question back.

Please, indulge us. Why the concern for "equality" now, in this very specific context?

I don't get bent out of shape over AA, but what do you mean "why the concern for equality now in this very specific context?" Do you think that the majority of people who are opposed to affirmative action only care about equality when they are negatively affected by policies that promote evaluating candidates based on characteristics like skin color? I think most people want others to be treated equally regardless of factors like this.

I would disagree.

I think most are self-interested twerps who are largely concerned with other people having "advantages" they do not have, while completely ignoring the advantages they themselves have had in life.

At any rate, I'd just like to hear their rationale, whether they fit my perceptions or not.

or are you the self-interested twerp that just wants an advantage? Or maybe your just racist and think that black people aren't as smart or as strong of candidates regardless of other factors in their life? Or maybe you are racist and just don't like white people? Personally I don't think a person should receive advantages or disadvantages because of their skin color. Furthermore, I think most people who disagree with AA wouldn't have as much of a problem with if it were based on factors such as socioeconomic status.

What about the advantages you received because of your white skin?

Oh wait, you don't perceive such advantages, therefore they do not exist. I get it. You pulled yourself up with your bootstraps from the same deplorable conditions as the most destitute minorities, yet through your own faculties and merits you've succeeded, and furthermore you expect no assistance from anyone, nor do you feel it "fair" that anyone else receive assistance.